The Iowa MessageDemocrats may be ready to "move on" from the Clinton era.

Saturday, January 5, 2008 12:01 a.m.

Iowa's caucus-goers shook up the conventions of American politics Thursday night, and to our mind mostly to the good. Barack Obama's convincing Democratic triumph, based on a huge increase in Iowa voter turnout, is at least a historic cultural moment and maybe a political one. Mike Huckabee's Republican victory probably has less long-term meaning but also has some salutary effects.

Mr. Obama's message of "change" and a new national unity clearly captured the imagination of Democrats, drawing in nearly double the number of participants who have ever attended an Iowa caucus. As a black man running in a nearly all-white state, Mr. Obama's triumph should also put to rest the canard that Americans won't vote for a black President.

We've long believed the country is ready to do so and might have elected Colin Powell had he run. But Mr. Obama is the first serious African-American candidate who has explicitly avoided race-specific appeals. Like Catholicism to Jack Kennedy, Mr. Obama's race is part of his political character but doesn't define it. His success marks a watershed in American political history.

The Illinois Senator's performance is also welcome as a sign that most Democrats want to "move on," as some of them like to say, from the Clinton era. Bill Clinton has described his wife Hillary's campaign as a case of "back to the future," even as she too has claimed to be an agent of change. But inevitably, if she were the nominee, the baggage of their earlier co-Presidency would attend her campaign and might help defeat her in November.

Something like half of the American people say they could never vote for Senator Clinton, and Democrats who are eager to retake the White House know this. Mr. Obama promises a break from these polarizing politics, as well as from the dynastic Presidential chain of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Mr. Obama's call for change has its ambiguities, to say the least, but one of its explicit themes is a promise to end the partisan feuds of the last 15 years--which for the Clintons are nearly bloodfeuds. This strikes us as healthy both for Democrats and the country.

Mr. Obama's campaign rhetoric is also notable for its optimism, in contrast to John Edwards's angry populism. Mr. Edwards is now citing his second-place Iowa finish as a vindication of his call for "change." But he's taken to running essentially like the trial lawyer he is, as if he is prosecuting a giant tort case against all of American business and politics. Mr. Edwards speaks of villains and victims, Mr. Obama of aspiration and opportunity. The latter is what Americans want from a President.

This is not to say that either Mr. Edwards or the Clintons will go quietly into retirement. The Clintons in particular are experts at attack, though Mrs. Clinton has to guard against making herself even more unlikable than she already seems. She might have the most luck hammering at Mr. Obama's greatest liability, which is his lack of national security experience. This remains a post-9/11 country, and Americans know they are electing a Commander in Chief in wartime. Mr. Obama has often sounded naive in the extreme in discussing Iraq, Iran and the overall war on terror, and Mrs. Clinton can point out that Republicans are sure to make that argument in the autumn.

Mr. Obama's other potential weakness in November is his orthodox policy liberalism. We can't recall a single issue on which he has broken with a Democratic interest group. On taxes, he is to the left even of Mrs. Clinton in that he wants to raise the income limit on payroll taxes above its current ceiling of $102,000. Combined with his vow to repeal the Bush tax rates, this would be the biggest tax increase in history by far. Sooner or later this liberal agenda, assuming Mr. Obama believes it, will have to be squared with his rhetoric of "bipartisanship" and national reconciliation.

As for Mr. Huckabee, he shares at least one trait with Mr. Obama--both come across as likable men with an easy charm. But we have our doubts that the former Arkansas Governor's victory will have the same political impact. He won in a caucus where his fellow evangelicals were 60% of the vote, and this won't be true in other states. Mr. Huckabee is also only now being discovered by most Republican voters. His innocence (or ignorance) on foreign policy, penchant for borrowing liberal economic attack lines, and even his rejection of Darwin's theory of evolution deserve to be understood by voters before they make him their standard bearer.

Yet there is also something refreshing about Mr. Huckabee's rise from nowhere to win in Iowa. He showed that money matters less than message in politics, defeating Mitt Romney despite being vastly outspent. His victory has jumbled the GOP field in a way that means John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and even Fred Thompson will all have more time to make their case. Just when you think that politics is dominated by cynics and pollsters, along come the voters to show us again that it is also about idealism and our better aspirations. For a change.

HAD Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton seen the long queue for Barack Obama's rally at Nashua High School on Saturday, she might well have felt physically ill.

The line in this southern New Hampshire town snaked up a gentle incline and around a bend for more than a kilometre. Traffic was at a standstill as organisers scrambled to find extra parking away from the roadsides that are walled by snow banks of up to 1.5 metres after the state's snowiest December on record.

The organisers had planned for a crowd of 2200 in the school's spacious new gym. They organised an overflow room in the old gym just in case.

It soon became clear that those arrangements were inadequate for the 4000-plus crowd that turned out to see the man who defied the odds and won the first contest of the 2008 presidential elections.

Obama magic is sweeping New Hampshire. Even the jaded Washington press corps is amazed. One old-timer said he had never seen such turnouts — certainly not in 2004, when John Kerry was the great hope of the Democratic Party.

Marilyn Quail and her husband, Tom, came from Bedford, New Hampshire, to hear Senator Obama. "I am interested in Obama because he's generating so much excitement, and he does seem to give us hope that things can change after Bush," she said.

First, I'm from Maine, have family in NH, and NOT all Independents in New Hampshire are "libertarians." MANY are very moderate, or even left-of-center. New Hampshire is tracking more and more blue: popular Dem governor, two new Dem congress members, many more Dems in the legislature, voted for Kerry last time, many people have come into NH from the bluer states of Mass. and VT, ... As she always does, Hillary sounded smart and sharp last night. But here's the conundrum she's in: when she goes negative, which she basically has to do now, she starts showing those teeth and claws that serve to reinforce the negative images people already have of her. She did that last night: looked downright nasty after Edwards called her "the status quo." Hillary's negatives remain high, and she'd have a damn hard time overcoming them in the general election. She is by far the most electorally risky of the top Dem candidates, and that may have even worsened last night. Hillary showed once again that she smart as a tack and well-qualified, but what she also did last night was to solidify her position in the overarching narrative of this election: change vs. experience/Washington establishment. Yes, she tried hard to bridge the two, but her emphasis, as it has been, was on her "experience." The reinforcement of that narrative combined with the claws that came out last night pin her further into the negative image that, fair or unfair, too many people have of her. Obama and Richardson held their own last night (both looked tired which is understandable give the grueling schedule), but Edwards stood out and did very well. Very arguably, it was Edwards (who ideally remains my first choice with Obama a close second), not Hillary, won the debate. He was very focused and on-message, and he successfully drew out that "nasty" response from Hillary. Obama has shown that he can draw support fom across the political divide in a way that Hillary so far has not. If he wins NH, and especially if Edwards comes in second or even a close third, Hillary will be in real trouble because Obama will then go on to win SC. It is tough to recover from too may early state losses even with the money and organization of the Clinton machine. I would like to this, more objectively. The amount of "change" that Hillary has actually affective could, arguably, be described as minimal. She failed on healthcare during Bill's presidency, from what I understand she has but a modest Senate record (much credit though for her big election win in NY), apparently she did some good work in education back in Arkansas but can only so much credit. Obama has already done some good things in the Senate, did many good things in the Illinois legislature, and was a community organizer in Chicago who certainly created "change" for people on the front lines. Edwards has some Senate accomplishments, ran a poverty center, started afterschool programs, beat down big corporations in court time and again, has started the One-Corps organization, has been an active union organizer, and done other things affect real "change" for people. Also, Hillary has taken A LOT of corporate money. She virtually defended that corrupt system last summer. How can she create "change" when she takes the money of those who purpose in life it is to block change??? THAT was the BEST point made all night, and EDWARDS made. it. In the last analysis, Edwards and Obama have the best chances of defeating the R's in the general election. If trends remain, Obama could prove to be a bonafide RFK type political phenomenon. Don't get me wrong, I like Hillary and would work like hell for her if she were nominated, but she would have a VERY tough time overcoming her negatives in the general election.
People are HUNGRY for change, whether or not that term seems like something of a political cliche'.¨

They want something new, something exciting, something different. The presidential vote is the most personal vote, for better or worse. People are excited and juiced up about Obama. He has a magic that Hillary just doesn't have, and if he can continue to build the kind of coalition he won with in Iowa and show that he is credible on the issues, Christ help the R's come November.

Barack Obama leads John Edwards among men 42% to 21%, with 19% for Hillary Clinton. Among women, Obama leads Clinton 35% to 31%, with 20% for Edwards. Clinton leads Obama among Democrats 34% to 32%, while Obama leads Edwards among undeclared voters (independents) 49% to 21%.

John McCain leads Mitt Romney among men 42% to 21% and McCain leads Romney 35% to 30% among women. McCain leads Romney 44% to 19% among undeclared (independent) voters, with 18% for Huckabee. Undeclared voters are now 27% of the total Republican vote.

Barack Obama’s high standing in Germany goes beyond his opposition to the unpopular war in Iraq. The country’s sudden crush is bound up with near-constant comparisons here between the young senator from Illinois and President John F. Kennedy Jr. – still admired in Germany and particularly in Berlin.

The Berliner Morgenpost over the weekend ran with the headline, “The New Kennedy.” The tabloid Bild declared, “This Black American has become the new Kennedy!” And the headline for the editorial in the Frankfurter Rundschau read simply: “Lincoln, Kennedy, Obama.”

“Only a small, informed minority knew about Barack Obama in December,” said Christoph von Marschall, Washington bureau chief for the Tagesspiegel newspaper, whose book, “Barack Obama, The Black Kennedy,” came out then. He said after the Iowa Caucuses last week, interest in Mr. Obama and sales of the book – which is presently sold out on the German Amazon Web site – suddenly surged.

Mr. Obama’s newfound popularity among Germans underscores not only the breadth of his appeal but also the opportunity he might have as president – though far from even his party’s nomination – to mend fences abroad.

“There are similarities between JFK’s time and today,” said Karsten Rossow, 49, of Berlin, who was visiting the small Kennedy Museum by the Brandenburg Gate Sunday, on a dark, snowy afternoon, with his wife. “People are ready for the politics of change.”

While the whole world follows American elections, Germans learned to pay particularly close attention because of the unparalleled influence that the United States had as both occupier and protector after their country lost World War II.

Some are reserving judgment. “It’s too early,” said Udo Schacht, 53, at a train station on Friedrichstrasse, the street where the
Checkpoint Charlie border crossing once stood, “to say that he’s the new Kennedy.”

As for the Democrats, I doubt Hillary moved many people in her direction tonight. The most telling moment, I think, was when it became clear that John Edwards has decided to side with Obama in the post-Iowa competition, and attack Hillary for not being serious about change.

There's already been much attention devoted on the blogs to her response, during which she appeared to get ratty. I agree the exchange only serves to underline one of her great weaknesses - that people don't like her. But I thought her response demonstrated a more serious problem - that she doesn't really get what the clamour for change among Democrats is about. She did what she always does now in answer to the challenge that she does not represent enough change, by reeling off a list of things she has actually managed to do in Washington.

It's an impressive list - children's health insurance, support for US troops - but as important and concrete as these things are they don't seem to match up to the much bigger, almost spiritual dimension of change that I think Obama represents. The critique of Obama - fairly - is that what he says is all very inspirational but hopelessly vague and ethereal. But Hillary's problem is that this is what people seem to like. The desire for change is about more than a desire to change a few policies here and there. it is about transforming the very nature of politics and the fact is, with her baggage, Hillary just can't do that.

MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE – Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s campaign will be hosting its own forum on New Hampshire television, following Dr. Paul’s exclusion from a Fox News Republican “forum” tonight.

The one hour townhall will be broadcast on Manchester television station MCAM TV-23 from 5-6 PM ET. The event will also be simulcast online at www.RonPaul2008.com.

“By unfairly excluding Congressman Paul, Fox News is turning its back on New Hampshire voters who are tired of business as usual in Washington that overtaxes, overspends and tramples our personal liberties,” said Ron Paul spokesman Jesse Benton. “Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, peace and prosperity is a natural fit with the Granite State’s ‘live free or die’ philosophy.”

Congressman Paul was excluded from the Fox News event despite routinely polling higher in New Hampshire than other candidates included in the Fox forum, and raising nearly $20 million dollars last quarter.

January 06, 2008

Ron Paul FOX Hunt

Posted by Lew Rockwell at January 6, 2008 12:41 PM
Good for CNN for repeating the ABC Republican and Democratic debates tonight when FOX plays its neocon simulacrum of a debate. FOX wants to hurt Ron Paul by excluding him. Instead, like everyone who has gone after Ron, from Rudy to Bill Kristol, FOX itself has been hurt, and shown up as a pure tool of the regime.

January 06, 2008

Jay Leno Invites Ron Paul Again

Posted by Lew Rockwell at January 6, 2008 01:48 PM
Ron will make his second Tonight Show appearance Monday night. Jay, btw, is also upset at FOX's exclusion. Plus, of course, he wants good ratings, and that's what Ron brings.

Facing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire, a sudden collapse in national polls and an expected fund-raising drought, Senator Hillary Clinton is preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race? And when?!

"She can't take multiple double-digit losses in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada," laments one top campaign insider to the DRUDGE REPORT. "If she gets too badly embarrassed, it will really harm her. She doesn't want the Clinton brand to be damaged with back-to-back-to-back defeats."

Meanwhile, Democrat hopeful John Edwards has confided to senior staff that he is staying in the race because Hillary "could soon be out."

"Her money is going to dry up," Edwards confided, a top source said Monday morning.

MORE

Key players in Clinton's inner circle are said to be split. James Carville is urging her to fight it out through at least February and Super Tuesday, where she has a shot at thwarting Barack Obama in a big state. But others close to the former first lady now see no possible road to victory, sources claim.

Developing...

[The dramatic reversal of fortunes has left the media establishment stunned and racing to keep up with fast-moving changes.

In its final poll before Iowa, CNN showed Clinton with a two-point lead over Obama. Editorial decisions were being made based on an understanding the Democratic primary race would be close, explained a network executive.]

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Hillary Clinton isn't the only one worried about Barack Obama's post-Iowa momentum. A former top Republican official tells CNN Obama could win a significant portion of the Republican vote in a general election, if he becomes the Democratic nominee.

The leading Republican strategist, who requested anonymity because this person advises a number of Republican presidential candidates, told CNN "I think Barack Obama is a potential Robert Kennedy or Reagan figure." And "in terms of raw political horsepower, he is the most electable of any of the Democrats and potentially more electable than Bill Clinton. If he ran the right campaign he could appeal to a substantial number of Republicans and Independents."

This person insists an Obama nomination isn't a done deal. "He could make a mistake. His people could get overconfident. He needs to continue to push his theme even as she continues to hit him on different issues."

In the days since he won the caucuses, the New York senator's campaign has hit Obama on a number of issues, including his decision to hire a former lobbyist to manage his New Hampshire campaign, and his past position on the Patriot Act. Former President Bill Clinton compared Obama's early position on the Iraq war to President Bush's, and national reporters were summoned to an urgent conference call because some callers on the 'Do Not Call' registry had received robo-calls from Obama's campaign that Clinton's staff alleges did not fully comply with election law.

Yet Obama now holds a 10-point edge over Clinton in the new CNN/WMUR poll of New Hampshire primary voters released last night, and an even larger advantage in some other surveys.

This top Republican explains that Obama "is incredibly nice, he's likable. People want to like him. He's the personification of bringing people together. He's the personification of unity. People like that and it works."

He says Senator Clinton "lacks a gut level connection" with voters. "I'd rather run [a Republican] against her because she turns out our base. He [Obama] doesn't have the baggage she has and he appeals to Republicans and Independents in this post-partisan way."